Are there any old-timers here who remember back when Apple's service used to be one of the Mac evangelist's most formidable weapons? Oh, sure, the PC folks could talk about cheaper systems, more available software, and the hours of free entertainment derived from fiddling with IRQs and Registry entries (it's that last one that's always made us jealous), but we Mac users could always play that trump card: free lifetime technical support via toll-free calls to (800) SOS-APPL. Sadly, the past few years have yielded a steady decline in the quality of Apple's technical support. That lifetime phone support got reduced to a mere 90 days of coverage-- Apple moved to a more "Microsoft-like" (their words, not ours!) system and additional service required customers either to purchase a service plan or pay on a per-call basis. Meanwhile, product warranties remained set at one year, while some other computer manufacturers extended their coverage to three years or more. These days, when trying to persuade a fence-sitter to buy a Mac instead of a Wintel box, technical support is a topic we've learned to avoid like exposure to flesh-eating bacteria. When faced with the dreaded question "But how's the support?", we fake an epileptic seizure and then change the subject to the iMac DV's lovely color selection.

What's truly sad is that we're starting to think Apple just really doesn't "get it." Originally we assumed that Apple's reduced support was a simple matter of cost-cutting intended to keep the company from bleeding to death during the Scary Times. We figured that once Apple regained solvency, the technical support of old would experience a glorious rebirth and Apple would once again reign supreme in the field. Instead, we're seeing more cuts; according to a couple of MacNN special reports, Apple is now trimming back the involvement of third-party service providers. All iBooks and PowerBooks needing service must now be sent back to Apple instead of being repaired at a local shop, thus extending wait times for customers and cutting authorized dealers out of the loop. And since there's less of a need for them now, Apple has also trimmed the six percent of its Authorized Service Providers who "failed to meet their quota of $100,000 per quarter."

The idea, according to Apple, is to cut the dead weight, but we're sure some small but very dependable service providers got axed in the process. As for all newer Apple portables now needing to be sent off for "Depot Repair," we're at least mildly skeptical that this is going to be good for customers. Say your PowerBook dies. Maybe it just needs a relatively simple fix, but instead of having it repaired quickly by your local service guy, you've got to contact Apple, wait for them to send you a box, package up the PowerBook, ship it off, wait for Apple to fix it, and then wait for Apple to ship it back. Forget about one-day turnaround; you're looking at three days, best-case. And as we can personally testify, three days without your beloved Mac is three days too long. We're not involved enough in the service end of the Mac world to make a truly informed judgment, but based on what we've experienced in the past, we just hope Apple knows what it's doing. In the meantime, we'll keep practicing our "seizures."

Petty, petty, petty. You'd think that Intel would have a little more self-confidence; after all, here's a company that's broken the gigahertz barrier, shipped more chips than Pringles, and has one of the most recognizable names on the planet. So why do you suppose Intel representatives would be so worried about a few little iMacs? According to an article in the Harvard Crimson, when Chipzilla sponsored an exhibit at the school's College of Arts and Sciences for a recent Internet and Health conference, the company actually demanded that all of the Science Center's iMacs be covered up.

Now, this is the really weird part, to us: Intel didn't just show up at the event, see the iMacs, freak out, and demand that Harvard cover the machines. The company actually brought its own covers with them, implying that it knew all along that iMacs would be visible on the premises and planned to cover them up. How crazy is that? And even stranger, it wasn't like Intel made a subtle suggestion to Harvard that the iMacs might not be appropriate, and Harvard immediately went a-coverin'. The director of the Computer Services group actually refused to cover the iMacs at first, feeling that the request "unfairly impaired student usage," but Intel kept hassling him about it until he had no choice but to comply. He says he eventually agreed "only after multiple requests and great reluctance... usually, if we say no, we're done, but this just didn't stop."

Funnier still, Intel's representative claimed she was "unaware that the heat from the covered computers required them to be turned off"; she had assumed that the students could "still use them" even though they were covered. Now, does anyone else have trouble believing that Intel doesn't know about processor heat? C'mon, Intel knows better than anyone the importance of maximizing airflow around processors; the Pentium III throws off enough wattage to flash-roast a buffalo. We ain't buyin' it. Maybe Intel was hoping Harvard would run the iMacs with the covers on and burn them out. Who knows?

The best part of all, though, is the fact that the covers were removed and the iMacs reactivated "about halfway through the conference," instead of after the whole thing ended. Students needed access to the iMacs, so Computer Services eventually had to bag Intel's request and uncover them earlier than planned. When they did, there were crowds of people "standing in lines" to use the iMacs. Now that's a photo we'd love to have: scores of people lined up to use iMacs underneath a giant "Sponsored By Intel" sign. Photo op!

Our cup runneth over-- and we're talking one of those Ultra Big Gulp cups that more closely resembles a paint bucket. We admit it; there's just far too much juicy post-ruling "Redmond Justice" material to cover on our little show, so we're going to pick just a few tidbits to share with you all, and let you folks dig through the rest on your own. After all, the search is half the fun. Okay?

Faithful viewer Mike O'Brien was the first of many to point out a very fun read over at the New York Times called "Retracing the Missteps in Microsoft's Defense at Its Antitrust Trial." As you can imagine, it's extraordinarily long. Go figure. If you had lost track of just how many intensely stupid moves Microsoft made over the course of the trial, now's your chance to get caught up. We warn you, though-- be prepared to carve out a huge chunk of time to update your error tally. Especially if you're going to include all the mistakes Microsoft made before the suit was even filed...

What post-season "Redmond Justice" wrap-up would be complete without an interview with the man of the hour? It's only a matter of time before fans can buy Judge Jackson t-shirts, but until then, you slobbering fans will have to content yourselves with the Wall Street Journal's conversation with everyone's favorite trustbuster. The focus? How Microsoft was a pack of lying weasels at just about every turn. Read how Jackson went from being opposed to a structural remedy to ruling that Microsoft be split up the middle like a cheap pair of pants.

Once you've chewed on that, make sure you're prepared for the Return of the Sweater. This is not a drill, people; according to CNET, the "sweater-clad" Bill Gates will return to the airwaves once more to fight the battle of public opinion. Just like last time, he won't refer to his company's antitrust violations directly, but he'll blather on about "the next generation of software" and how it will "help your children learn" and "make you irresistible to the opposite sex." (It's possible we're misquoting on that last bit.) So if you don't want to have to endure the nightmare spectacle of The Sweater once again croaking on about how "the best is yet to come," steer clear of network TV for the next few weeks, because we bet it'll be in heavy rotation. (Suppose they'll be able to edit out the tears streaming down Bill's face in post-production?)

Lastly, we leave you with a quickie gem by faithful viewer Matthew Guerrieri, who forwarded us this picture of Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer under the heading "Appellate Strategy": Booga-booga!